Film Review: King of Kings

 "King of Kings"

*** (out of ****)

This December I have spent some time reviewing Christmas themed movies - movies centered around Santa Claus and gift buying. Of course the despite the best intentions of retailers and secularists, Christmas is a religious holiday. It is a day to celebrate the birth of the lord and savior, Jesus Christ.

In the past I have reviewed religious movies during the Christmas season - "The Nativity Story" (2005), the animated movie, "The Star" (2017) and the silent Cecil B. DeMille film, "The King of Kings" (1927). I knew I wanted to review another religious themed movie this year but wasn't sure which one. I figured since I reviewed the silent version of "The King of Kings" maybe it would make sense to review the sound remake "King of Kings" (1961).

Growing up, I always had a kind of reverence for movies like "The Greatest Story Ever Told" (1965) and "King of Kings". In my family it was almost sacrilegious to criticize a religious movie. Why would you criticize something that is explaining the word of God? However in the cinematic world, I don't believe the popular consensus is to regard either movie as a "classic". My impression has been "The Greatest Story" was something of an "epic flop", along the lines of "Cleopatra" (1963) - a big budget epic filled with an all-star cast but a troubled filming production. "King of Kings", I thought, was viewed as having aged a bit better. Upon its original release "King of Kings" opened to mixed reviews but made a profit for M-G-M. When compared to "The Greatest  Story", "King of Kings" is considered the better movie.

Directed by Nicholas Ray, "King of Kings" tells the story of the life and times of Jesus Christ (Jeffrey Hunter), going from his birth to his crucifixion. Being a bit older and less afraid of speaking my mind, I can now say the movie plays like a crash course in the life of Jesus. So much of "King of Kings" is presented in a matter-of-fact way. It is an extremely impersonal film. It gets the words right but lacks feeling.

Beginning with a narration by Orson Welles the movie quickly goes over a brief history of the Romans (Gen. Pompey) taking over Jerusalem, the reign of Herod the Great (Gregoire Aslan) and his death at the hands of his son, Herod Antipas (Frank Thring) and Joseph (Gerard Tichy) and Mary (Siobhan McKenna) arriving in Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus. There isn't any character development or motivations explained. The camera doesn't provide any great emphasis on Mary and Joseph. They are introduced plainly and events simpy keep spinning along and onward. As characters in a story, the audience isn't really asked to identify with anyone.

What is most interesting about "King of Kings" is the theme lurking around in the background - how best to deal with injustice? Is it through peace or violence? I suppose in some ways the movie could have been relevant to the civil rights movement of the mid-50s to late 60s. In "King of Kings" the contrast exist between Jesus, advocating for peace between Jews and Romans, and a Jewish rebel, Barabbas (Harry Guardino) who promotes violence against the Romans. This could be the equivalent of Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.

Notice how Ray and his trio of cinematographers film scenes revolving around the words of Jesus and this drama of ideas between Jesus and Barabbas. For that matter, compare scenes between any character and Jesus. Every scene not involving Jesus is filmed far more compelling and emphasized for dramatic tension. Scenes with Jesus have a thematic and visual simplicity you could compare to Pasolini's approach in "The Gospel According to St. Matthew" (1964), which I would declare is a "masterpiece" and for more emotionally rewarding film experience.

Other interesting moments in "King of Kings" revolve around the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist (Robert Ryan). They are presented as having a brotherly bond between them. Some of the movie's more heartfelt moments involve their relationship and consist of some of the more powerful statements in the film on the subject of faith. John and Baptist and Barabbas are meant to be the opposite of one another. John the believer and Barabbas an opportunist who contends if he could capitalize on the "celebrity" of Jesus and present Jesus as a believer of his cause it would elevate him. Together Barabbas feels he and Jesus would be unstoppable and able to defeat the Romans.

This fictionalize conflict is further complicated when Judas, (Rip Torn) a follower of Barabbas, finds himself drawn to the teachings of Jesus. Judas must decide whose path he will follow. Of course eventually he chooses to follow Jesus but never quite stops believing in Barabbas' cause and methods. According to "King of Kings" this is the main motivating factor in Judas' betrayal of Jesus, his desire to help Barabbas. Torn, I believe, gives one of the film's better performances.

Jeffrey Hunter as Jesus may be the actor that has received the most praise for his performance. His best sequence for me is when he delivers the Sermon on the Mount and we see Jesus address the questions of the crowd. This "crash course" in religion is at its best here because of the ways it shows Jesus' handling of the crowd and is one of the few scenes that places its greatest emphasis on Jesus' words and allows the viewer enough time to digest his teachings. As I had mentioned before the movie quickly glosses over events and moves through history rapidly. This sequence however is a wonderful marriage of visuals and dialogue.

What is further suspicious about Ray's choices in "King of Kings" is the lack of miracles. Two of the most famous would be the healing of the leper and the feeding of the multitude - when Jesus fed thousands with five loaves and two fish. Also absent is the Wedding at Cana - when Jesus turned water into wine. Some of these miracles are mentioned in dialogue in "King of Kings" but none of them are shown on-screen. Was this Ray's way of invoking faith in the movie? Viewers hear of these miracles but don't see them. Do we still believe they happened? Or was Ray hinting at something else? It is an unusual decision to make for a biblical story.

Prior to directing "King of Kings", Nicholas Ray may have been best known for the James Dean vehicle, "Rebel Without A Cause" (1955), for which Ray was nominated for an Academy Award for the movie's screenplay. It was the only Oscar nomination in his career. He also directed "In A Lonely Place" (1950) with Humphrey Bogart, "They Live By Night" (1948), and "Johnny Guitar" (1954) with Joan Crawford. You could make the case Ray was attracted to stories that challenged social conventions. These examples include films about individuals wrongly accused and social outcasts. These themes have may been what drew Ray to this story of Jesus.

But all in all I can't call "King of Kings" a great movie. It never stirred me as powerfully as a story about the life and teachings of Jesus should have. I prefer DeMille's version of this story. He presents Jesus as a awe-inspiring figure. I mentioned by admiration of Pasolini's work. I even prefer Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" (2004). "King of Kings" glosses over too much history. The first 20 minutes of this movie could have been its own two hour movie. The relationship between Herod and his son could have been it's own movie. And it goes on and on. Everything that didn't make its way on-screen could have been another movie.

Jesus' teachings aren't given the dramatic impact they deserve. The movie doesn't create a reflective atmosphere allowing the viewer to take in these teachings and inspire us.

I am all for people remembering the religious significance of Christmas. If "King of Kings" serves as a reminder of what this holiday is about, wonderful. I say unto you go and watch it! But I no longer hold it in such reverence as I once did. It is an interesting effort with some interesting themes and perhaps social significance but not the awe-inspiring work about Jesus some may have hoped it would be.  

Film Review: Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town

 "Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town"

*** (out of ****)

Did you ever wonder how did Santa Claus get his name? How did he learn so much about toys? Why does Santa Claus come down a chimney? What happened to workers' pension plans? Well, the 1970 stop-motion animated children's Christmas movie, "Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town" has all the answers - well except for that last question!

Debuting on ABC television, this Arthur Rankin / Jules Bass movie has become a Christmas classic and television watching tradition, playing on TV every year. Even I, your neighborhood Hungarian grinch, have fond memories of watching it as a child.

Based somewhat on the 1934 Christmas song of the same title, "Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town" answers children's questions regarding the origins of Santa Claus. Our narrator and local postman, S.D. Kluger (Fred Astaire) tells us the story of how everything came to be. You see, while out on his route Kluger's mail truck breaks down in the cold snowy weather. His truck is full of letters from children writing to Santa Claus. The children however don't only write to Santa to tell them everything they want for Christmas. Sometimes they ask Santa questions about himself. Kluger will now take this moment - instead of getting his truck fixed - to take a break and answer all of the children's questions. Nevermind that it is a felony to open someone else's mail!

Claus, as he was known back than, was an abandoned baby in the town of Sombertown. Originally he was left at the door steps of the town's burgermeister, Meisterburger (Paul Frees, best known as the voice of Boris on "Rocky and Bullwinkle"). He rejects the baby and orders it be taken to an orphanage. The baby is almost magically captured by a strong wind, blowing the baby into another town at the homes of a family of elves named Kringle. For whatever reason the elves take the baby in and decide to name him Kris.

When Kris (Mickey Rooney) grows older he learns the elves are toymakers. In fact they once had a reputation for being great toymakers. They were so good that they were named toymakers to the King! Inspired by this story Kris vows to restore the family name of Kringle and deliver toys to children in Sombertown. However this is a dangerous mission. The reason the elves haven't been able to deliver their toys is because they are afraid of crossing paths with the dreaded Winter Warlock (Kennan Wynn). But Kris isn't afraid and is determined to make it to Sombertown.

Unfortunately, the day before Kris arrives in Sombertown, the Meisterburger injures himself when he falls on a toy. Outraged by this occurrence the Meisterburger outlaws all toys. Government officials confiscate all the toys from each home. When Kris hands out toys to the children he is warned by a schoolteacher, Jessica (Robie Lester) he will get in trouble and informs him of the town's laws. Kris pays no attention to such a silly law and proceeds to give Jessica a toy as well. This immediately causes her entire worldview to shatter and crumble before her eyes and now must admit how great toys are.

That is one of the themes of "Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town" - the magic of toys and gift giving. Giving someone a gift lightens their heart. This is how Kris is even able to turn the Winter Warlock around. Even the Meisterburger briefly has a change of heart when Kris hands him a yo-yo. Christmas is all about giving each others gifts!

Of course there have been other movies that have tried to explain Santa Claus' origins - "Santa Claus: The Movie" (1985) and "The Santa Clause" (1994) - but none have seemed as targeted to children as this is. This is an almost comically over-exaggerated story. Other movies try to add a dash of realism to their stories to make them seem plausible to an adult's mind. "Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town" doesn't seem aware adults exist in this world. It is one cornball thing after another in this movie.

In one way that is great for the little ones but outside of nostalgia mom and dad won't get much out of this. The treatment of this story is too simplistic. Still I suppose in one way that level of innocence can be charming and is what makes "Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town" unique. Especially when compared to today's animation which always has an adult sensibility lurking around in the background with pop culture references and innuendos. "Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town" is for children first and foremost and plays at their level.

The movie seems to be a combination of "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" (1937), "A Christmas Carol" (1938) and even "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" (1966) and yet seems to be totally original in its own right.

A level of innocence also manages to manifest itself in the stop-motion animation which almost looks primitive to the CGI animation of today. But again that is part of the movie's charm - its simplicity. I'm old enough where this style of animation doesn't bother me and naturally I prefer anything older to something modern. Children I think we notice the difference but won't be distracted by it and will readily accept it.

The choice of voice actors was also inspired. Fred Astaire has a gentlemanly quality to his voice that seems familiar and friendly. Keenan Wynn's voice is the exact opposite of the image of the Winter Warlock which is meant to create a contrast and humor.  And Mickey Rooney has a matter-of-fact way of delivering his lines that I can imagine is relatable to children.

"Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town" is not a great movie - there are a lot of plot holes. But it is charming and fun for children. It doesn't try to be anything greater. Christmas is about Santa, getting gifts and being nice to one another. But the greatest emphasis is on toys. That is all a child cares about when it comes to Christmas. The filmmakers won't boggle children down and make a "message movie". I guess they have time to learn about the true meaning of Christmas. Until that moment arrives though, "Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town" will entertain them.

Film Review: The Santa Clause 2

 "The Santa Clause 2"

*** (out of ****)

When the former movie critic for the Chicago Tribune newspaper, Michael Wilmington, reviewed the original Tim Allen / Disney comedy, "The Santa Clause" (1994), he began the last paragraph of his review by writing, "The best thing you can say about Tim Allen's movie debut is that at least he doesn't have to do it again."

I shared - somewhat - Wilmington's negative view of what has admittedly become something of a modern holiday favorite but I am glad Allen got to play the role once again if for no other reason than to get the material right.

Reviewing "The Santa Clause" I wrote the movie is more about divorce and the effect it has on a father / son relationship than about Christmas. I also didn't think the movie offered much of a Christmas message.

"The Santa Clause 2" takes the material from the first movie and rearranges it but displays it in such a way that I find I like this movie more than the first one. Of course, this is really all a very nice way of saying "The Santa Clause 2" recycles materials from the first movie and is rather predictable.

Scott Calvin (Tim Allen) has settled into his role as Santa Claus and the results have been very positive. According to the Easter Bunny, children are eighty percent happier since Scott has become Santa! But all of that is in jeopardy. Remember that card Scott found on the body of Santa Claus, after Santa fell off Scott's roof and died (what a disturbing concept!). To Scott's eyes, the card said to put on Santa's clothes and the reindeer will know what to do. There was a fine print however, a "Santa Clause" if you will, which stated an individual that puts on Santa's suit must now take on all responsibilities associated with Santa Claus. Well, there was a second clause to the "contract". That's right, a second "Santa Clause". This one informs us Santa Claus must be married! Unfortunately, if you remember from the first movie, Scott has been divorced and now Scott has until Christmas Eve, a mere 28 days, to get married or he stops being Santa Claus. Apparently, not only does Scott stop being Santa but Christmas may become a thing of the past like 8-track tapes, VCRs and manners.

If all of this weren't enough Scott discovers his son, Charlie (Eric Lloyd) is on the naughty list this year! Charlie has been acting out at school spraying graffiti. Scott needs to leave the North Pole and attend to Charlie. But, how can Scott still run the workshop in the North Pole, spend time with Charlie and look for a wife all at the same time? That's really the heart of the movie. How do parents split their work / life balance. How do we keep the family connected? Once again "The Santa Clause 2" is about the father / son relationship but side steps it a bit - having absolutely nothing at all to say about this issue - and focuses more on Scott's desire to find a Mrs. Claus and his courtship of a potential candidate, Charlie's school principle, Carol (Elizabeth Mitchell).

What I like about "The Santa Clause 2" is it reminds me of an old-fashion Christmas romance. The goal may be "Miracle on 34th Street" (1947) which was also about a perceived bitter, cold woman who has lost touch with the meaning of Christmas and how Santa Claus rekindles that flame inside her. She also needed to find a man! And before a young person says those "old movies" are sexist, may I introduce you to the Hallmark Movie channel? Have a nice day!

I find I like Tim Allen more when he was playing Scott than when he was playing Santa. The more sentimental, emotional scenes happen not on the North Pole but between Scott and Carol or Scott and Charlie. The movie actually has little to tell us about Santa. It used up all of the mythology in the first movie.

The movie splits its time between the North Pole and our world. Back on the North Pole, Scott decided the best way to be in two places at once was to create a duplicate of himself. Borrowing from elements of Vincent Price in "The Fly" (1958) and the forgotten Michael Keaton comedy, "Multiplicity" (1996), Scott creates a giant toy version of himself. This "toy Santa" will run things at the North Pole and keep the elves from getting suspicious. Things don't go as planned as "toy Santa" becomes a stickler for rules and believes no child is worthy of being on the nice list. In fact, Santa - drawing comparisons to a former Cuban dictator - turns the workshop in a mining factory! "Toy Santa" will deliver coal to all the children of the world.

While some of this recalls the work of Victor Herbert (a la "Babes in Toyland") and Alexandre Dumas ("The Man in the Iron Mask") the movie is also poking fun at the idea that Tim Allen was the voice of a toy - Buzz Lightyear! Not only did Allen get to play the voice of a toy he now gets to act like one too.

I am still conflicted however on if this movie understands the meaning of Christmas. Arguably the key sequence in the movie involves Scott and Carol attending a faculty Christmas party. The party is dud. No one looks happy. Scott literally takes stage and declares now would be a good time to do the Secret Santa gift swapping. In reality there wasn't supposed to be any gift swapping but wouldn't you know it, all of a sudden Scott finds a big bag with toys and starts handing out the gifts. The gifts are childhood favorites of each recipient - one person gets the game Toss Across, another Rock 'em Sock 'em robots...etc. What does this scene tell us about ourselves and Christmas? Is Christmas all about getting toys? Does Christmas bring out the child in all of us? Are we all nostalgic and sentimental about our past?

Throughout the movie Scott really can't relate to anyone. His way of relating to people is by giving them things. His son confides to him he is starting to like girls and doesn't know how to act around them. What does Scott do? He doesn't share a story about his youth and dating. No. He talks about the North Pole. When Charlie gets in trouble and Scott has to visit the principle, he's more concerned about there not being Christmas decorations up than truly understanding his son's behavior.

In our secular world, I suppose that is the meaning of Christmas - Santa Claus and buying gifts! What are our memories about Christmas? What made it exciting?  Was is the people we got to spend the day with or the toys we got? "The Santa Clause 2" and most Christmas movies wrap the meaning of Christmas around commercialism. It is difficult to separate the two. How much better would "The Santa Clause 2" have been if father and son really bonded? Or if Scott taught people to love and forgive one another and cherish each Christmas we spend with loved ones? To say nothing of mentioning the birth of Jesus. We can't expect everything!

"The Santa Clause 2" is a piece of nice family entertainment silly enough for kids to enjoy but not dumb enough to bore parents. Tim Allen is funny and has a likeable screen presence. The movie is a wonderful celebration of the commercialism of Christmas. 

Film Review: Ernest Saves Christmas

 "Ernest Saves Christmas"

* 1\2 (out of ****)

Saving Christmas is easy! The movie on the other hand...

Back in October I dedicated the month to horror movies and a case of nostalgia got the best of me. I reviewed the comedy / horror movie "Ernest Scared Stupid" (1991). I mentioned I hadn't watched an Ernest movie in about 30 years. As I prepared for December and spending the month reviewing Christmas themed movies, I thought why not take another trip and visit my friend Ernest, knowhutImean?

"Ernest Saves Christmas" (1988) was the third feature-length movie to present the Ernest character and was the second movie in the official Ernest series. It was also the most successful at the box-office, grossing more than 28 million.

I'm not as familiar with the Ernest P. Worrell (Jim Varney) character as I used to be but "Ernest Saves Christmas" was not the movie I was expecting it to be. Having "Ernest Scared Stupid" somewhat fresh in my mind, I was anticipating "Ernest Saves Christmas" to be kid friendly entertainment and for Ernest to be a man-child character - an adult with an innocence associated with a child. That's not how I felt watching this movie.

On one hand "Ernest Saves Christmas" is more of a straight forward comedy. It is still a kid friendly movie but Ernest isn't really presented as an innocent man-child character. He is just a dim-witted fool. He was always an adult to me and other characters he interacts with regard him as such. Compare this to "Ernest Scared Stupid" and notice how the Ernest character primarily interacts with children and is presented as being at their same intellectual level. Even the adults in that movie treated him as a child. Not so in "Ernest Saves Christmas". I would imagine the character was still being developed.

The other thing I noticed watching this movie is it plays like a giant advertisement. Remember, originally Jim Varney and John Cherry created the character to appear in commercials pushing various products. Pay attention to all of the product placement running throughout this movie! As soon as the credits begin we see various animated images of Santa Claus, notice how he is holding a bottle of Coca-Cola in some of the images. The Ernest character was at one time featured in Coca-Cola commercials! There was no reason to place images of Santa with a Coca-Cola bottle in the movie if not to advertise the soda product.

And it's not just Coca-Cola, you'll see advertising for Bic pens, National Car Rental, Ryder Rental Trucks and Eastern Airlines! This isn't a movie, it's advertising space!

The movie's director, John Cherry - who sadly died earlier this year - was an executive vice-president at an advertising agency, which explains a lot about this movie. Not just the product placement but also the amateur filmmaking. There are a lot of unusual camera shots in the movie - mostly positioning the camera at the ground level looking up at Ernest. Cherry also goes back to Ernest's advertising gimmick of having an off-screen neighbor named Vern, to whom he was usually pitching a product to. There is a completely unnecessary sequence here involving Ernest paying his old friend Vern a visit.  

In "Ernest Saves Christmas" Ernest is a Florida taxi driver. We first see him with an impatient passenger eager to get to the airport. Ernest informs the passenger he need not worry and then proceeds to mistake the highway for an Indianapolis 500 race course, zig-zagging pass cars while his passenger slides from side to side in the back seat. 

It is at the airport Ernest meets a seemingly nice older gentlemen (Douglas Seale), kind of jolly looking with a white beard. He says he has come to Orlando to find a replacement for his duties. He also informs us, his name is Santa Claus. You see, it's time for jolly ol' St. Nick to pack his bags. He has been the official Santa Claus since 1899 and his memory is starting to slip. It has gotten to the point Santa has to jolt down notes to remind him of what children want for Christmas! 

The new man for the job might be Joe Carruthers (Oliver Clark), the former host of a weekly children's television show. Santa believes Joe's dedication to helping and teaching children makes him the perfect candidate to become the new Santa. Now all Santa has to do is convince Joe of who he really is and get Joe to agree to take the position.

For a movie with this kind of plot, "Ernest Saves Christmas" doesn't feel magical. It doesn't fill us with the Christmas spirit and a sense of joy. I wouldn't describe this as a "feel good" movie. "Ernest Saves Christmas" should have used the classic Christmas movie "Miracle on 34th Street" (1947) as an inspiration. There was a movie about Santa trying to convince others he is real and tries to protect his image and keep the spirit of Christmas alive. "Ernest Saves Christmas" doesn't even come close to accomplishing this.

If that wasn't bad enough, the movie isn't funny. I wasn't expecting a laugh-out-loud riot but I did think the movie would get a chuckle or two out of me. I didn't care for "Ernest Scared Stupid" but did admit I found moments amusing and even went as far as saying the Ernest character was everything you could want a comedic character to be - brash, confident, a self-proclaimed foremost authority on any given subject. But here Varney's talents are completely wasted. Varney only has a handful of comedic tricks up his sleeve that he constantly calls back to - namely making silly facial expressions by squishing his face. It wasn't funny the first time and it's not funny the 10th time.

To try and give the movie some redeeming value the movie throws in a troubled teen character, Pamela (Noelle Parker). We never get her full background story but we can pick up she has run away from home. Continuing on her path of making bad choices she decides to stick around Ernest and Santa. Pamela is meant to be the heart of the movie and provide us with some sort of theme about having faith in people. The problem is the Pamela character never earns our sympathy.

But how much heart can the movie have when its one objective seems to be about commercialism with all the product placement. What exactly is the point of this movie? What is an audience suppose to feel after watching it? Gee, I could sure go for a Coke right about now!

I think what would have made "Ernest Saves Christmas" work is everything  I said was wrong with "Ernest Scared Stupid". This needed to be a lot more kiddie. Ernest needed to be a full blown child that believes in Santa and even claims to have met him - in order to impress other children. He needed to be filled with the Christmas spirit. Then he meets Santa and perhaps only briefly doubts him but after giving him a quiz comes to believe. Throw in the troublesome family plot as they come to learn the meaning of Christmas and there you have it! A sappy, predictable, harmless family comedy about Christmas.

"Ernest Saves Christmas" is not a good movie. Not even for children. It lacks the Christmas spirit, a positive message, laughs, heart, interesting characters, good direction and good cinematography. Other than that, it's worth watching.

Film Review: The Grinch

 "The Grinch"  

*** (out of ****)

While perhaps a slightly longer running time - 10 to 15 minutes - may have benefitted the original animated movie "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" (1966) little else could have been done to improve the holiday classic. However, our society's sick fascination with "modernizing" classics eventually caught up to this Dr. Seuss story. 

It's not that this 2018 animated remake from Illumination is bad. It just wasn't necessary. If anything, it serves the purpose of taking away the awful taste left in my mouth after watching Ron Howard's live action remake "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" (2000) starring Jim Carrey.

The original "Grinch" was 26 minutes. Naturally that is far too short to constitute as a feature-length movie. As such it is difficult to remake this material without adding a lot more to it to fill up the time. Both the live action remake and this animated one believes the key to doing this is to add a background story for the Grinch. The original movie didn't tell us why the Grinch is the way he is. Quite frankly, it didn't need to. The original also takes place on Christmas Eve and wasted no time getting into the thrust of its story with the Grinch's plan to stop Christmas. Repeating that timeframe however doesn't help a feature-length adaptation prolong the plot.

And so our new story takes place on December 20th. The Whos down in Who-ville are preparing for Christmas. There will be a Christmas tree decorating event going on in the town square as the Mayor (voiced by the wonderful, late Angela Lansbury) has ordered Christmas must be three times bigger this year. The Grinch (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch), who still lives north of Who-ville - atop of a mountain - dislikes Christmas and the Whos. Not to mention all the noise, noise, noise that comes along with Christmas and the Whos' singing!

As has been the trend with modern animation, the characters are "hip" and knowledgeable about current and slightly older pop culture, so that children and parents can get the references, which is supposed to be the movie's effort at achieving humor. Every now and than there are innuendos that may go over a child's head and are really there for the parents. This time around we learn the Grinch has tried to isolate himself from the Whos and Who-ville and has attempted to stock up on food supplies so he won't have to engage with the Whos during the Christmas season. Unfortunately, he has been doing a lot of emotional eating - do children know what this means? - and is completely out of food. The Grinch and Max will have to head into town to buy groceries. 

This set-up - that also introduces the relationship between Max and the Grinch, with Max as an ever eager dog ready to please the Grinch - sets in place the chain of events to move our narrative forward and introduce the other characters. The most important of all will be Cindy-Lou (voiced by Cameron Seely), a lovable child desperate to contact Santa to ask for a special gift.

Other important characters we meet in Who-ville are Cindy-Lou's mother, Donna (voiced by Rashida Jones) - shown as an overworked single mom taking care of three little ones - and the so-called happiest Who in Who-ville, Mr. Bricklebaum (voiced by Kenan Thompson). When the Grinch arrives in Who-ville the movie also subtly mentions religion, as a choir of Whos are singing "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen". If you recall, in the original "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" the songs sung are in a made-up gibberish language and no mention of religion is ever brought up. It was a deliberate choice by director Chuck Jones and Dr. Seuss, who wanted their story to be secular in nature.

These encounters in Who-ville increase the Grinch's dislike for Christmas and spark a lightbulb to go off in his head. He will stop Christmas from coming by dressing up and Santa Claus and will steal all the Who boys and girls gifts on Christmas Eve. When everyone awakens on Christmas morning and discovers what has happened, there will be no Christmas to celebrate. 

In this new version, thanks to the new timeframe, the Grinch and Max have the opportunity to find reindeer to properly portray the Grinch as Santa. They even have time to do research to correctly anticipate how many homes they will need to sneak into. Kiddie humor is inserted into the story with the emergence of the character Fred, an overweight reindeer. Fred was the only reindeer the Grinch could acquire to participate in his plan. The character also has a minor rivalry with Max for the Grinch's attention. 

As I first began watching "The Grinch" I was somewhat dubious. I am not a fan of remaking classics movies. Why can't Hollywood leave well enough alone? Does everything need to be updated in a feeble attempt to introduce old ideas to younger generations? Can't younger generations and their older parents honor and celebrate the classics? It is a weird dichotomy society is going through with the increase in nostalgia - mostly the 1980s - and our desire to update everything. Things can't be old and new at the same time. Can they?

One of the first differences I noticed in this new adaptation was the narration. Of course the original had Boris Karloff. This time we have Pharrell. I could hardly contain my excitement! That's sarcasm by the way. Karloff had that deep baritone voice. In his later years, as is the case with "How the Grinch Stole Christmas", his voice had a grandfatherly affect on me. It was like being covered with a warm blanket listening to him narrate the Grinch. Pharrell's voice doesn't have the same effect. It is a young voice. A non-threatening or distinguished voice. Karloff could bring out the anger in the Grinch and various other emotions. Pharrell, not being an actor, simply can't. 

I must admit Benedict Cumberbatch's voice work isn't much better. I can only assume this was done on purpose. It is such a polar opposite to Karloff's voice. If we could describe Karloff's voice as masculine, Cumberbatch and Pharrell's are "delicate". Not feminine but soft-spoken. Less authoritative. Do children prefer the sound of these type of voices?

I thought my nausea was going to increase when I heard the new version of the song, "You're A Mean One, Mr. Grinch". It almost sounded like a dual track of a rap version being played over a children's choir. Was I turning into the Grinch? Was I going to have to listen to this "noise" through-out the movie? Is this what "modernizing" a movie means? Making it worse! Luckily, it is the only time we hear this version. It took away all of the humor and playfulness of the original song, which was superbly sung by Thurl Ravenscroft. You couldn't even understand the lyrics in this new version.

Then of course there was also the issue of the look of the Grinch and the rest of these characters. I knew going into the movie this was going to be CGI, as the classic animation, hand drawn style of my youth, has gone out the window. Cindy-Lou however is made to look much older and new Who characters are introduced to us. In the original though the characters weren't meant to look human. In this movie they kind of do.

But soon as the story began to settle my resistance to the movie slowly began to wane. It wasn't an abomination to my senses just an entirely unnecessary enterprise. In its own way it helps to reinforce what makes the original so special. There is a kind of magical appeal to the original movie that this remake could never duplicate. Things can't be old and new at the same time! There is a lot about this movie that makes it indistinguishable. If, for some reason, someone preferred this over the original it would be because they saw this remake first and have a bias against things that were made before they were born. The person would have to be one of those individuals that needs to be thought of as "modern".  

This all makes it seem like I dislike the movie. It does retain the theme of the original and expands upon it. Christmas is not something that can be stopped. It is a feeling of joy and good will. Commercialism and gift buying is not what the true meaning of Christmas is. I'm sure many younger children who will watch this for the first time will enjoy it. Especially if they are unable to compare it to the original. I do doubt though that this new version will ever replace the original in the heart's of those that have seen it. In the years that have passed since this new version was released, I don't feel this has emerged as a new holiday classic. I do however still see the original one for sale in stores and played on TV.

"The Grinch" is an aimable piece of entertainment families can enjoy. It's not great but in today's world it is something better than that. It's modern.

Film Reviews: A Charlie Brown Christmas & How the Grinch Stole Christmas

 "A Charlie Brown Christmas"

*** (out of ****)

What is the meaning of Christmas? What's the big day really all about? Two beloved children's Christmas movies ask the big question and come to similar conclusions.

"A Charlie Brown Christmas" (1965) - the first Peanuts television special - originally appeared on CBS television as a Christmas special in early December. It begins with Charlie Brown declaring - in a matter-of-fact kind of way -  that he's depressed. "I think there must be something wrong with me Linus," Charlie explains. "Christmas is coming, but I'm not happy. I don't feel the way I'm supposed to feel. I just don't understand Christmas I guess." Those are the first words spoken in this 25 minute animated short movie and begins Charlie Brown's exploration to understanding the meaning of Christmas.

Initially, Charlie is upset with everyone for not engaging in traditional holiday activities with him like sending Christmas cards, but Charlie also becomes disappointed with how those around him are choosing to celebrate Christmas. His dog, Snoopy, for example has entered a neighborhood lights and display contest. The ad for the contest reads, "Find the true meaning of Christmas! Win money, money, money!" His sister, Sally, wants him to write a letter to Santa on her behalf. She has the audacity to ask Santa to bring her cash - 10s and 20s! And Lucy, who is giving psychiatric help out for a nickel, not only becomes ecstatic at the sound of a nickel dropping into her jar but laments to Charlie her disappointment that she never gets what she really wants every Christmas - real estate! 

Has the world become too greedy? Is money all that motivates people? Has the spirit of Christmas gotten twisted in commercialism? There must be more to Christmas than this, Charlie wonders.

It's a message that serves as a nice reminder to children and adults alike. There's nothing wrong with little ones wanting to write Santa a letter or parents buying gifts, but can we all take a minute to slow down and actually understand what Christmas is supposed to be about? It's not a time to go out shopping, pushing and shoving each other to find the hottest gifts. Or spending a considerable fortune shopping online. Christmas is about more than talking snowmen and reindeers with red noses. It is a time to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. That's not me editorializing. That's actually what Charlie Brown learns! Linus is the only character capable of expressing the true meaning of the holiday to Charlie.

For years I have complained on this blog that Hollywood Christmas movies only seem to focus on Santa and children wishing and hoping to receive a special gift. In more modern times, Christmas movies are about finding a boyfriend (thanks Hallmark movie channel!). But never in my wildest dreams did I ever think a mainstream animated movie would bring religion into the conversation and in a positive light! Can you imagine a mainstream animated movie doing this today?

"A Charlie Brown Christmas" marks my first time watching the Peanuts gang. Growing up, neither the comic strip or the animated specials interested me. For some reason it bothered me as a child to hear the sound of adults speaking in their "wah wah" gibberish. Having now seen "A Charlie Brown Christmas" however I am able to understand what is so appealing about Charles M. Schulz's characters.

The interaction between the various characters and Charlie Brown reminds me of Jack Benny - hey, I had to compare it to something I know and am much more familiar with! Think about it. In Jack Benny's world he is the sane one surrounded by eccentric characters that give him a difficult time. When he reaches a point of exasperation with someone he shouts, "Now cut that out!" Based on "A Charlie Brown Christmas", my takeaway is Charlie is our center. The character we are supposed to identify with. The other characters have more exaggerated personalities and often make Charlie the center of their remarks. And, when Charlie becomes exasperated with their behavior he shouts, "Good grief!"

And what a surprise for me to come to the realization some of the classic Christmas songs I hear around this time on the radio are actually from this movie!

I wish " A Charlie Brown Christmas" was a bit longer to allow the movie more time to establish its theme. The story feels rushed with Linus' big speech coming out of nowhere. Adding an additional 10 to 15 minutes would have really helped make this story feel complete. In the end though, Charlie Brown's midwestern aw-shucks humor makes this is a nice Christmas movie for families to watch.

"How the Grinch Stole Christmas"  *** (out of ****)

"Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas" (1966) is a children's animated Christmas family movie I am much more familiar with. I hadn't discovered it until my early teen years and it quickly became a favorite! I liked it so much I even bought it on VHS (remember those?) and would watch it any time of the year.

Borrowing from elements of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol", "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" begins similarly to "A Charlie Brown Christmas" with characters singing around a Christmas tree. Their words signify a time of joy and brotherhood as they sing a song with lyrics "while we stand heart to heart and hand in hand".

On this particular Christmas Eve however in Who-ville, the Grinch (voiced by Boris Karloff) has devised an awful plan to stop Christmas! After 53 years the Grinch - whom some suspect may have a heart two sizes too small - is fed up with the Whos down in Who-ville and all their noise and singing on Christmas day as he lives atop of a mountain just north of Who-ville with his dog Max. 

The Grinch is going to pretend to be Santa Claus and steal all the presents for the young girls and boys. He's even going to take their Christmas trees and food! Then when everyone awakes on Christmas morning and sees all of their presents are gone, there will be no Christmas and best of all, no noise and singing!

Both "The Grinch" and "Charlie Brown" are hitting on the theme, what is the meaning of Christmas? Both reject commercialism but Charlie Brown learns it is a time to celebrate the birth of the lord and savior, Jesus Christ. The Grinch learns Christmas is about showing kindness to others and allowing love to enter your heart. The Grinch learns Christmas isn't a thing - something that can be stopped. It is a feeling. Both are nice messages and can live side by side. 

"How the Grinch Stole Christmas" is the more secular story of the two and meant to be more kid friendly with funny songs and physical comedy a la Max the dog. Children may be so distracted by these elements they might not understand the movie's deeper message and may think the Grinch is funny and nothing more.

One thing I noticed during a recent viewing is when the Grinch complains about all the noise, we see on-screen the Whos beating drums and playing instruments. Some are playing games. While the Grinch hears "noise" what he is missing is the joy and friendship that is taking place. He's not able to see that probably atop of his mountain and inside the homes of the Whos. When the town gets together to sing around the Christmas tree, it isn't merely a bunch of Whos, with terrible singing voices making "noise", it is a bond and a sense of togetherness that the Grinch can't see.

There is also something to be said about the relationship between the Grinch and Max. Max doesn't seem bothered by the idea of Christmas and the celebrations in Who-ville but he goes along with the Grinch's plan simply because that it the relationship between master and servant. A remake of the Grinch from 2018 delves a bit deeper into their relationship.

Like "A Charlie Brown Christmas", "Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch  Stole Christmas" debuted on CBS television. It was based on Dr. Seuss' book, of the same title, which was written in 1957. It was directed by Looney Tunes director, Chuck Jones and is equally well remembered for the songs sung by Thurl Ravenscroft (the voice of Tony the Tiger).

"How the Grinch Stole Christmas" is a fine family Christmas movie with a warning about commercialism. Too bad the director and Seuss didn't want to go that extra mile and mention religion. Still this is an enjoyable Christmas movie.

Film Review: The Comedy of Terrors

 "The Comedy of Terrors"

*** (out of ****)

"People are dying this year that have never died before!"

Addington Ganzy (Bert Wheeler) - Hook, Line and Sinker (1930)

Despite whatever wise-cracking comedian Bert Wheeler may have to say the dying business ain't what it used to be. Especially for Waldo Trumbull (Vincent Price). Business has slowed down to such a degree that Waldo is a full year behind on his rent to Mr. Black (Basil Rathbone) - who has given Waldo 24 hours to come up with back payment or he will be put out in the street!

I don't think Waldo, a drunkard, would care very much about being out in the street except for the fact after a night filled with drinking, where would he rest his weary head? Waldo's wife, Amaryllis (Joyce Jameson) and his senile father-in-law,  Amos (Boris Karloff) may feel differently about the situation. Not that Waldo would give their considerations much thought. Our introduction to the married couple shows them bickering, hurling insults at one another. Amaryllis accuses Waldo of only marrying her to take over her father's funeral parlor business, which Waldo doesn't object to. 

But what is Waldo to do? He can't help it if business is slow. What is he supposed to do? Go out and kill people? Can he do that? Should he do that? Someone might considered that wrong, wouldn't they? "The Comedy of Terrors" isn't Dostoyevsky so these moral ponderings aren't given much weight. And so Waldo and his assistant, Mr. Gillie (Peter Lorre) head out to take matters into their own hands. 

As comedy-horror movie plots go, this isn't half bad. The casting of heavyweights like Vincent Price, Peter Lorre and Boris Karloff is inspired. It gives "The Comedy of Terrors" horror movie credibility while also allowing the actors to poke fun at their screen personas. Plus, the fact the movie was distributed by American International Pictures (AIP) it makes us think of Roger Corman, who often casted these actors, and released his Poe adaptations through AIP.

"The Comedy of Terrors" however wasn't directed by Roger Corman but instead by another venerable filmmaker of the horror genre, Jacques Tourneur. Tourneur, along with producer Val Lewton, gave us the highly influential horror movies "The Cat People"  (1943) and "I Walked with A Zombie" (1943). After his collaboration with Lewton, Tourneur also directed "Night of the Demon" (1957). With such a pedigree behind this movie, they could have given us an actual horror movie. Too bad they didn't!

It feels like AIP wanted to make a kind of sequel to "Tales of Terror" (1962), which the studio released a year prior. That movie was an entry in Corman's series of Poe adaptations and used the anthology format. There was some humor added to one of the three stories and here it seems the decision was made to fully capitalize on it and make a full feature comedy. Much of the cast is even the same - Price, Rathbone, Lorre and Joyce Jameson.

In true comedy-horror fashion the movie is a balancing act between the two different genres. Often there is both comedy and horror in the same scene. Lets take for example a sequence involving Waldo and Mr. Gillie mistakenly believing they have killed a man. When brought back to their parlor, the man awakens and so the two men sit on top of his casket while the man fights for his life to be taken out. It is both horrific and comedic. These two men are killing a man. Essentially burying him alive and yet we laugh at the situation because of how outlandish it is. Waldo keeps insisting to the man he is dead and the man keeps refuting it!

Much of the comedy is of a very silly nature. In the first scene we see Waldo and Gillie as on-lookers at a funeral. Once the family pays their respects, the camera speed is sped up and silent movie ragtime piano is played while the two men hustle to dump the man's corpse into the ground, keeping the casket so they can reuse it! Bury him and drive off in their carriage.

There is also a running joke between Waldo and Amos. Amos' character basically sits by a table and dozes off and only awakes to mutter something completely unrelated to the conversation others are having. Waldo, who has grown frustrated with Amos, regularly offers to give Amos his medicine, which is actually poison. Whenever he pours some in Amos' cup, Amaryllis is there to take the cup away. Amos however, unaware of what is going on, becomes discouraged with his daughter constantly interfering with his medicine. 

What may be surprising to some viewers is how well Price, Lorre, Karloff and Rathbone are at handling comedy. Price and Lorre have an almost Laurel & Hardy relationship as they try to break into homes and create customers. Price and Lorre's antics reminded me of the Laurel & Hardy comedy "Night Owls" (1930).

The script was written by Richard Matheson, who would go out to write the novels "I Am Legend" and "A Stir of Echoes". He worked with Corman on the Poe adaptations writing the scripts for "The Fall of the House of Usher" (1960), "The Pit and the Pendulum" (1961) and "The Raven" (1963). It's said he grew tired of the Poe adaptations and writing stories of people being buried alive, so he decided to turn it into a joke.

While some modern viewers will probably consider the movie camp, I like the movie's spirit. It would have been nice if the movie paid homage to Tourneur's horror movies from the 1940s instead of Corman's Poe adaptations. I find it funnier than Corman's "The Raven". Matheson wasn't really allowed to show off his ear for dialogue in the Poe movies but here his words sparkle and he is not only able to combine comedy and horror but Shakespeare too. The movie's title is a pun on the play "The Comedy of Errors" and one character goes around quoting "Macbeth".

Unfortunately, the movie was a flop at the box-office but today remains something of a cult classic and is very deserving of a second look. It's not the best example of comedy-horror out there but you could do a whole lot worse.

Film Review: Ernest Scared Stupid

 "Ernest Scared Stupid"

** (out of ****)

Superman! Batman! Ernest P. Worrell? The ne'er-do-well, lovable man-child is a defender of our  American way of life. First he saved Christmas and now he is going to save Halloween in "Ernest Scared Stupid" (1991). Is there no end to what this man is capable of? 

Ernest is a dim-witted jack of all trades and truly a master of none. In "Ernest Scared Stupid" he works in a small town's sanitation department and unwittingly unleashes an evil troll one of his ancestors helped capture 100 years ago. According to the legend, the troll, for some reason named Trantor, places a curse on the Worrell family, making each generation dumber and dumber, leading the town's scary old lady (Eartha Kitt) afraid Ernest may be the one dumb enough to let the troll, buried under an oak tree, free.

I don't know where or when I first saw Jim Varney and John Cherry's  (the movie's director) Ernest creation but his slapstick hi-jinks and imbecilic nature delighted me as a child and touched my funny bone. I was eight years old when I saw the trailer for "Ernest Scared Stupid" and by gum, I knew right there and than someone was going to take me to a movie theater to see it!

As we grow older and become adults our taste (hopefully) becomes more sophisticated and mature. We outgrow the silliness of our childhood. As such I haven't seen "Ernest Scared Stupid" - or any Ernest movie - in the last 30 some odd years. However as I wrap up my annual October tribute to horror movies nostalgia kicked in and this comedy / horror kiddie movie popped into my mind.

Watching Ernest again I can kind of, sort of see what the appeal was to a child but I don't find the character to be endearing as an adult. Ernest has similar qualities to another famed man-child character, Pee-Wee Herman. I actually re-watched "Pee-Wee's Big Adventure" (1985) not too long ago and found that character's appeal has vanished for me too. Though, if my life depended upon it, I'd rather watch Pee-Wee again.

And while I may be down on Ernest and "Ernest Scared Stupid" I must confess something. At eight years old, "Ernest Scared Stupid" scared me! I couldn't have been the only child scared by this movie. So when I say as an adult the movie is poorly made and not at all scary, I must remind myself of my inner eight year old. This movie can indeed scare children!

For as juvenile as we may think Ernest is, in the world of comedy he actually does everything right and possesses your typical comedic persona traits - in his mind he is a foremost authority on any given subject. He can be brash, confident and cowardly. He is a dreamer and easy victim of any get rich quick scheme. If Varney was a little older it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility the character could have been in silent movies.

We see a lot of these traits on display in "Ernest Scared Stupid". When we first see Ernest he is taking great pride in his work and shows off his latest invention to his dog, Rimshot. Naturally everything goes haywire and Ernest finds himself tossed into the back of his garbage truck about to be crushed to death. Notice the pride, the confidence, the sense of genius (his invention) and how quickly it all disintegrates under his own stupidity. In comedy this is known as the superiority theory of comedy - I may not be a genius but I'm sure smarter than that guy.

To further hit on this idea of superiority, notice how all of the adults treat Ernest as if he is a child. The characters he has the most interaction with are children. But even they sometimes look at Ernest and laugh at him. Of nearly all of the adults, except "Old Lady" Hackmore (Kitt), only Ernest believes the children about the existence of a troll. And only the children are serious about helping Ernest capture the troll. 

As I have written repeatedly, in order for a comedy / horror movie to work you must think of it as two movies in one. You have to take your horror portion of the story serious and create a plot that is truly scary and one you would find in a real horror movie. The comedy should arise naturally from the plot due to the situations the comedian is being placed in and their level of fear. In "Ernest Scared Stupid" they make a good attempt with the background story of burying the troll and the curse put on the Worrell family. The problem is the movie doesn't have any ambition. It wants to settle to be a kiddie picture when it could have been something like Abbott & Costello in "Hold That Ghost" (1941) or Bob Hope in "The Cat and the Canary" (1939). Why not make a really funny comedy / horror movie with Ernest? Maybe Ernest could have inherited a family estate, which turns out to be a haunted house. Why settle for this kiddie fare?

Scary scenes for this movie include the first time Ernest meets the troll in the children's tree house. It is a dark and stormy night. Ernest is all by himself, since the children have left him behind. Every noise, including the sound of the wind, strikes fear in Ernest's heart. The camera seems tilted. Everything in Ernest's world is now skewed. Objects start to move on their own. Suddenly, in the darkness and shadows, the outline of the troll's face appears. Ernest can't quite make it out but by now he is on the ground, trembling in a corner. In typical comedy / horror fashion Ernest shouts out "Boy, I sure hope you're from Keebler"! A reference to the famous cookie making elves that live in a tree. I must confess this line made me chuckle.

Another scary scene plays around with the idea of there's a monster under my bed as one of the children, Elizabeth (Shay Astar) is afraid the troll has followed her home. Sitting on her bed, she asks her mother if she'll check under the bed. The mother won't and becomes frustrated with her daughter's tales of troll, which are interrupting their plans to attend a Halloween party that night. After her mother leaves the room, Elizabeth slowly moves to the edge of the bed to look underneath. The anticipation builds until the reveal. It is a classic horror movie situation and it works.

I also suppose the very idea the troll only attacks children is scary - to children anyway. When the children are captured the troll turns them into wooden dolls and places them inside of a tree trunk. With each child collected the tree develops something that looks like troll eggs. Once enough children have been collected the troll eggs will hatch unleashing them on the town.

I wonder if the movie "Troll" (1986) and "Trolls 2" (1990) had any influence on the movie and making the villain a troll? The other trolls in the movie I thought resembled the clowns from "Killer Klowns From Outer Space" (1988). And speaking of clowns, I thought there were traces of "It" (1990). At the beginning of the movie, during the credits, several clips from older horror movies are being shown. It is edited in such a way as to suggest Ernest is reacting to the movie clips. It would have been nice if the movie paid homage to these other horror movies, which I thought the title sequence suggested.

Whatever lack of scary scenes or comedy the movie may suffer from, the acting may be a bigger problem. One of the first sequences - establishing the legend of the troll - has a little girl running away from the troll but the girl looks like she is going to laugh. When a couple believes their child has been turned into a wooden doll they aren't really heartbroken - exactly how bad was this kid! The best performances in the movie are given by Varney, mostly because his energy is infectious and Eartha Kitt, mostly for her delivery of the lines.

I'm really conflicted over this movie. As an adult I see a lot of faults with it but I know how I felt watching it as a child. If the core audience is children, they will get much more out of this movie than anyone else. As an adult I just don't really see the lasting appeal of the Ernest character. That said, "Ernest Scared Stupid" isn't necessarily the worst comedy / horror movie I have seen. Adults will want to watch this for nostalgia's sake. If you've never seen an Ernest movie before, I think you should leave it that way. KnowhutImean?

Film Review: The Curse of Frankenstein

 "The Curse of Frankenstein" 

** 1\2 (out of ****)

"The Curse of Frankenstein" (1957) is a British horror movie brought to us by the famed Hammer Film Productions and was not only their first Frankenstein movie but also their first foray into remaking the equally famed Universal Monster movies of the 1930s.

It begins  with a confession as Dr. Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) is in prison about to meet an untimely death. A Priest has been summoned for by Victor to tell his story to. Victor claims he is not a religious man but wants to tell his story to the Priest hoping others will believe his tale if it comes from the Priest's mouth. Despite whatever Victor may say about his lack of faith this gesture provides the most direct correlation between "Frankenstein" and morality I have ever seen in a movie. Even more so than the 1931 version with Boris Karloff.  And it is further punctuated by the fact that Victor is in prison - even if for a different crime - awaiting his execution. 

Yes, "Frankenstein" is a tale of man playing God, creating life, but what of the moral implications and ultimate judgement to be brought upon a person for such an act? In the 1931 version Dr. Frankenstein doesn't die but here Dr. Frankenstein must sit and confront his actions. Yes it seemingly leads to his death but the waiting aspect is what I find most intriguing. It adds a new dimension to the story. To have time and intellectualize what you have done and to have time to face the consequences of your actions. That can be horrifying. Does it result in guilt? Regret? Or possible affirmation? These are deeper questions not always explored properly in the various "Frankenstein" movies.

It is the digging deeper aspect that I enjoy most in the Hammer horror movies. For example in "The Mummy" (1959) the issue of Westerners not respecting other cultures and holding anti-science viewpoints is brought up. It is a driving force of The Mummy origin story but I'd never heard it so directly addressed as in this version.

In the 1931 version we first see Dr. Frankenstein as a grave robber. He is immediately presented to us as a questionable figure and a "mad scientist" however in the hands of Peter Cushing his Dr. Frankenstein is mild mannered. We get to see a gradual descent into madness. We briefly see Dr. Frankenstein as a child and later as an adult with his tutor and later colleague, scientist Paul  Krempe (Robert Urquhart). Together they have engaged in experiments concerning the re-animation of dead issue. Their greatest success has been bringing a dead puppy back to life. Dr. Frankenstein believes they should go further in their research however before notifying others of their achievement. They have the power, he believes, to create life and suggest assembling a man by collecting body parts from various corpses. While this slip into madness happens a bit too abruptly for my taste it does enforce the movie's central moral theme by having the character Paul as a constant voice of reason standing as an obstacle in Dr. Frankenstein's way. That voice was absent in other movies but here it provides a clear contrast and cements the idea Dr. Frankenstein is knowingly making immoral decisions and he must be put in a position to rationalize his actions. 

However I must admit I didn't find Cushing to be a great Dr. Frankenstein. Perhaps the slip into madness happens too suddenly but there is never a contrast in the performance. Cushing is playing the same character throughout. It never felt like there was a true transformation in the character. I appreciate that he doesn't go off the deep end into campy territory but I felt as if Gene Wilder in "Young Frankenstein" (1974) and Basil Rathbone in "Son of Frankenstein" (1939) did more with their interpretations. Cushing's performance comes off as monotone. He is only really playing something different in the bookend prison sequences.

"The Curse of Frankenstein" spends more time than I remember the original - I say original in reference to the 1931 version but do want to point out there is a silent version from 1910, which is sometimes credited as being the first horror movie (!) - focused on Dr. Frankenstein collecting body parts off of dead corpses to create his man. It is all an attempt to build up the anticipation for what this creation/monster (Christopher Lee) will look like. I must confess however, I wasn't that eager for the big reveal.

To remake such a well known and classic movie like "Frankenstein" is to set yourself up for comparisons with the original - especially for whoever plays the Monster. In a side by side comparison most would have a knee jerk reaction and say Boris Karloff's performance was the better of the two. They wouldn't be open to giving Christopher Lee's performance a second look. Not because of anything necessarily Lee may have done with his performance but because we have seen Karloff's performance first and therefore it is the standard bearer. This is not to suggest Karloff's performance isn't wonderful. Lee however is doing something much different. It isn't an apples to apples comparison.

Watching Christopher Lee's performance I felt it had more of a child-like interpretation. Pay attention to how the character walks for example. Karloff had the slow, zombie-like pace but Lee's Monster seems unsure if he will be able to hold his balance while standing - exactly how does this whole walking thing work? Everything is fresh and new to his eyes. It takes the Monster a while to register what he is seeing and even then he doesn't understand what it is. This is attributed to Paul damaging the brain Victor was going to use when the two men get into a fight. This leads to great resentment on Victor's part, blaming Paul for what his creation has turned out to be. It reminded me of two parents arguing and one of them saying - "this is your fault. Your side of the family has bad genes." It also adds an element of homosexuality to their relationship. Not quite at the level suggested in "The Bride of Frankenstein" (1935) however.

Lee's performance however took away all sense of horror for me. I didn't fear this version of the Monster. The Monster doesn't have the aim of frightening the townspeople - which is now in Switzerland. This Monster is all but directly implied to be special needs. Karloff had a sense of innocence to his Monster as well but his gestures and the make-up scared the bejesus out of me as a child. The zombie walk and look had a true sense of the dead coming back to life. I felt more pity for Lee's Monster than anything else by contrast.

What I like best about "The Curse of Frankenstein" are the ideas and themes presented. It is interesting seeing different interpretations of these well known characters. But the movie lacks a true sense of horror. This material is more dramatic than horrific. To some that may be an improvement. The movie has its defenders and was a box-office success spawning several sequels and further remakes of the classic Universal Monsters. I'm slightly torn between the movie but in the end if I had to chose which version of Frankenstein I would rather watch right now, I'd have to pick the 1931 version for its impressive sets and production design, Karloff's performance and the overall atmosphere the movie creates. "The Curse of Frankenstein" has its strengths but feels just a peg below the 1931 version. 

Film Review: The Bat

 "The Bat"  *** (out of ****)

In theory Crane Wilbur's adaptation of Mary Roberts Rinehart's novel The Circular Staircase - which was adapted for the stage in collaboration with Avery Hopwood - should have worked. Or work better than it does here. This is a story of greed, murder, corruption, deceit and things that go bump in the night. It has all the trappings of an effective horror movie. Two of the previous film adaptations - a 1926 silent version, released under the same title, and a sound remake called "The  Bat Whispers" (1930), were both highly influential. Some claim the movies inspired comic book writer Bob Kane to create his most famous character - Batman!

Those movies were also visually arresting. "The Bat" borrowed from elements of German Expressionism while "The Bat Whispers" featured impressive camera work, creating a swooshing effect, as if flying like a bat. This "modern" version however doesn't improve upon what had come before it.

Than as now, could it have been someone believed the movie should have been remade simply because? Was someone in Hollywood under the misguided impression "we could remake those old movies better now"? Or could it have been someone was looking through old horror movies hoping to find one that could be remade to star Vincent Price, as was the case with "House of Wax" (1953).

The setting is The Oaks, a summer home being rented by mystery writer Cornelia van Gorder (Agnes Moorehead). It will serve as this story's "haunted house". Cornelia's servants are so afraid by the mere suggestion of entering the house, they quit. Leaving Cornelia only with her faithful assistant, Lizze (Lenita Lane). Of course the viewer can't figure out what is so scary about the place. Perhaps because it is so efficiently lit by cinematographer Joseph Biroc, whom I felt could have done a lot more with shadows and lighting to create an eerie atmosphere. As for the house itself, it looks quite comfy. Haunted house movies, like "The Bat" and the silent masterpiece, "The Cat and the Canary" (1927), work because the houses look scary and forbidding. They are old and creaky. Usually its revealed they haven't been touched since a person died. The Oaks looks like a very expensive suburban home. So, it seems out of place when everyone gets the jitters merely looking it.

Also putting the fright in everyone is the threat of being the next victim of The Bat - murderer prowling around. Naturally, the killer looks nothing like a bat. He merely wears a black mask over his face - resembling an executioner more than anything else. This is the complete opposite of what the character looked like in the silent version. The character in this version also wears a glove with long claws, at best resembling a cat or lion. Was the Executioner Cat already taken as a title? Or would that sound ridiculous as a title and lack the realism of one like The Bat?

Further ingredients being stirred into the pot include a bank president, John Flemming (Harvey Stephens). He is the owner of The Oaks and admits, while on a hunting trip, to have embezzled one million dollars from the bank. His confidant is Dr. Wells (Vincent Price), whom he would like to help produce a body they can claim is the corpse of Flemming, to ensure he would not be a suspect. The question I had is why? Why did Flemming steal the money? It seems he did it for kicks. Why not lay into some old cliche like he was broke and in desperate need of money to keep his home, family and standing in the community. In the silent version this part of the plot is implied to have happened months after Cornelia has rented the home. The story however lingers in the air, causing everyone's fear. Here the two events - Flemming's death and Cornelia's renting of the house - seem to happen simultaneously.

Some of this material from Wilbur's screenplay is meant to be played for comedy. That's the purpose of the Lizzie character. I never found the performance quite funny however. Lenita Lane is no Bob Hope - who starred in "The Cat and the Canary" (1939) - a sound remake. Even the silent version of "The Bat" added moments of humor. The cast here doesn't seem able to project the humor and is better at playing this material semi-serious. Moorehead seems in on the tongue-and-cheek nature of what is going on here and gives one of the movie's best performances.

Although considered an icon in the horror genre by us old-timers, Vincent Price was establishing himself in the genre at this time. Prior to 1950s Price was coming off of "legitimate" acting in serious movies - "The Song of Bernadette" (1943), "Leave Her To Heaven" (1945), "Shock" (1946). In the 1950s he was appearing in "The Ten Commandments" (1956) and even found time to play Casanova against Bob Hope in "Casanova's Big Night" (1954). By the time "The Bat" (1959) was released things were a changing. Price had already appeared in "The Fly" (1958), "House on Haunted Hill" (1959) and "The Tingler" (1959). After "The Bat" he began his collaboration with filmmaker Roger Corman on the Edgar Allan Poe adaptations. To the extent the movie is watched and remembered today it would be largely because of Price. 

Director Crane Wilbur had a long career in the movies, dating back to the early 1900s. He was not known for the horror genre and "The Bat" was his last credited movie as a director. He wrote his final screenplay for "House of Women" (1962) but went uncredited as director. Perhaps a lack of understanding about the genre explains why he didn't get more from his performers and didn't create more scares. He seems to have no real flair for the genre. Much of "The Bat" functions as a mystery not a horror movie - given the movie's poster and the fact it was released on a double-bill with "The Mummy" (1959) - this was most certainly not the intention of the studio.

Even as a mystery "The Bat" is a bit of a disappointment and does a sloppy job in the way it tries to cast suspicion on a group of the characters. We never really suspect any of the "suspicious" characters. It feels kind of force.

Still there is a part of me that finds "The Bat" to be a silly lark, a piece of harmless entertainment. I realize that's not the best way you would want to describe a mystery/horror movie. I like watching Price and Moorehead on-screen as well. Price isn't anywhere near as campy as he would be in later movies. He plays things straight here. It is Moorehead that is the more animated between the two. Some may also find it interesting to note Darla Hood appears in this movie. She was best known for her role in the Our Gang comedy series.

"The Bat" is a well meaning unambitious lark. It could have been a really effective horror movie but instead settles for being a light diversion. Watch the movie for Vincent Price and Agnes Moorehead. You should however watch both the silent version and the sound remake to see this material done right.